Raymond La Raja's guest appearances

Raymond La Raja

New Books in Political Science

New Books in American Studies

New Books Network

Anastasia Denisova

T. L. Bunyasi

C. W. Smith

Amy Kittelstrom

Jennifer Mercieca

John Yoo

Garrett M. Graff

J. Neuhaus

Andrei P. Tsygankov

Johns Hopkins

Patricia Strach

Christian Zionism

W. W. Norton

Sarah Burns

Ben Epstein

OwlTail

Brian Schaffner

For much of the last 50 years, there has been a consensus that restrictions on political money would improve politics and government. Federal and state campaign finance reforms aimed to do just that. In their recent book Campaign Finance and Political Polarization: When Purists Prevail (University of Michigan Press, 2015), Raymond La Raja and Brian Schaffner reach a surprising and contradictory conclusion. Examining state-level data over several decades, they find that restrictions on campaign finance are associated with a more polarized legislatures and more money steered to groups outside mainstream politics. Restrictions empower the purists and weaken the pragmatists. Instead, the authors suggest that political parties might be strengthened if certain campaign finance restrictions were loosened, and party pragmatists could then provide the moderating influence on politics that they have in the past. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSupport our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

For much of the last 50 years, there has been a consensus that restrictions on political money would improve politics and government. Federal and state campaign finance reforms aimed to do just that. In their recent book <a href="https://www.press.umich.edu/4882255/campaign_finance_and_political_polarization" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Campaign Finance and Political Polarization: When Purists Prevail </a>(University of Michigan Press, 2015), <a href="https://polsci.umass.edu/people/ray-la-raja" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Raymond La Raja</a> and <a href="https://polsci.umass.edu/people/brian-f-schaffner" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Brian Schaffner</a> reach a surprising and contradictory conclusion. Examining state-level data over several decades, they find that restrictions on campaign finance are associated with a more polarized legislatures and more money steered to groups outside mainstream politics. Restrictions empower the purists and weaken the pragmatists. Instead, the authors suggest that political parties might be strengthened if certain campaign finance restrictions were loosened, and party pragmatists could then provide the moderating influence on politics that they have in the past. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit <a href="https://megaphone.fm/adchoices" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">megaphone.fm/adchoices</a>Support our show by becoming a premium member! <a href="https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science</a>

Raymond La Raja and Brian Schaffner, “Campaign Finance and Political Polarization: When Purists Prevail” (U of Michigan Press, 2015)

For much of the last 50 years, there has been a consensus that restrictions on political money would improve politics and government. Federal and state campaign finance reforms aimed to do just that. In their recent book Campaign Finance and Political Polarization: When Purists Prevail (University of Michigan Press, 2015), Raymond La Raja and Brian Schaffner reach a surprising and contradictory conclusion. Examining state-level data over several decades, they find that restrictions on campaign finance are associated with a more polarized legislatures and more money steered to groups outside mainstream politics. Restrictions empower the purists and weaken the pragmatists. Instead, the authors suggest that political parties might be strengthened if certain campaign finance restrictions were loosened, and party pragmatists could then provide the moderating influence on politics that they have in the past. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSupport our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

For much of the last 50 years, there has been a consensus that restrictions on political money would improve politics and government. Federal and state campaign finance reforms aimed to do just that. In their recent book <a href="https://www.press.umich.edu/4882255/campaign_finance_and_political_polarization" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Campaign Finance and Political Polarization: When Purists Prevail </a>(University of Michigan Press, 2015), <a href="https://polsci.umass.edu/people/ray-la-raja" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Raymond La Raja</a> and <a href="https://polsci.umass.edu/people/brian-f-schaffner" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Brian Schaffner</a> reach a surprising and contradictory conclusion. Examining state-level data over several decades, they find that restrictions on campaign finance are associated with a more polarized legislatures and more money steered to groups outside mainstream politics. Restrictions empower the purists and weaken the pragmatists. Instead, the authors suggest that political parties might be strengthened if certain campaign finance restrictions were loosened, and party pragmatists could then provide the moderating influence on politics that they have in the past. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit <a href="https://megaphone.fm/adchoices" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">megaphone.fm/adchoices</a>Support our show by becoming a premium member! <a href="https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies</a>